Are the DWP committing Fraud ?

[Jamess23]

I suppose I am playing devil's advocate here but it does seem strange that a debt that they cannot show paperwork for and is definitely incorrect can be wholly unintentional. This new mandate they have is a license to rake in money that is not owed. However maybe a few complaints to MP's may make the system a little fairer.

[Consumer dude]

I suppose I am playing devil's advocate here but it does seem strange that a debt that they cannot show paperwork for and is definitely incorrect can be wholly unintentional. This new mandate they have is a license to rake in money that is not owed. However maybe a few complaints to MP's may make the system a little fairer.

 

Computer generated make it up as you go along debts that has no basis in reality..

[caro]

Hello Caro,

Amendments to the Welfare Reform Act have greatly changed the pursuit of OS DWP debt, I have a reference to the exact amendment in my office, but no in till Tuesday.

 

I appeared for an appellant on a DWP debt of some £15,000 at a Tribunal Hearing and lost spectacularly on SB due to the 2012 amendment.

 

I can seek further advice from 'on high' after the BH.

 

There has not been any limitation on the ability to deduct payments from existing benefit awards for years. I know of 25+ year old debts being collected from current benefits.

 

I will find the document and post up the references asap.

 

In my friends case they are collecting a 15 year old debt but have advised to appeal as it's over 6 years old. This has been done and awaiting a response.

 

I would appreciate reference to the amendment when you have it.

[Jamess23]

Yes I agree that a log could be used to chase a debt but surely it should be more than '£138.04 owed did job but didn't tell us.' The employee who recorded this should surely note the job done, where and when and paperwork should not be destroyed until after the six year deadline which is what the email from the DM dept stated in the reply to my MP's assistant. The email said 'The abandonment rules have been considered in this case, but as six years have not elapsed (28/12/13) recovery can continue also the fact that no papers are held does not specifically make a difference to the recovery programme. As I said in my last reply - this mandate does seem to be a license to take money that is not due.

[Jamess23]

The vast majority of these debts are very old and with Government tasking departments such as the DWP and HMRC to recover as much outstanding debt a possible, using the Welfare Reform Act and amendments in the case of the DWP debts relating to overpayments and unpaid loans dating from many years ago, changes in the Act in 2012 means these are NO LONGER Statute Barred and can be pursued rigorously.

 

The simple fact is that there may only be a 'log entry' relating to an overpayment or unpaid loan on an individuals file but that's all that's needed for the debt to be chased.

 

These debts bear no relationship to consumer credit debt, the CCA 1974, or OFT Guidance a totally separate arena has been created.

 

The use of 3rd parties i.e. DCAs charged with using a more 'rigorous' approach to debt recovery is just one part of this scene.

 

I have on file a letter from Lord David Freud (Minister for Welfare Reform DWP) which explained what the authorities are for the DCAs and how they are regulated.

 

To talk of fraud by the DWP holds no merit, where records show debt to the department it is tasked to collect and can now use all methods open to them.

 

Yes I agree that a log could be used to chase a debt but surely it should be more than '£138.04 owed did job but didn't tell us.' The employee who recorded this should surely note the job done, where and when and paperwork should not be destroyed until after the six year deadline which is what the email from the DM dept stated in the reply to my MP's assistant. The email said 'The abandonment rules have been considered in this case, but as six years have not elapsed (28/12/13) recovery can continue also the fact that no papers are held does not specifically make a difference to the recovery programme. As I said in my last reply - this mandate does seem to be a license to take money that is not due.

[Jamess23]

In my friends case they are collecting a 15 year old debt but have advised to appeal as it's over 6 years old. This has been done and awaiting a response.

 

I would appreciate reference to the amendment when you have it.

 

I have an email dated 22/08/2013 that says: The abandonment rules have been considered in this case, but as six years have not elapsed (until 28/12/13) recovery can continue also the fact that no papers are held does not specifically make a difference to the recovery process.

 

So it does appear that there is still a six year abandonment deadline. This is where I feel the essence of a fraud comes from. They know that either a debt does not exist or that it is out of time and they still take money from peoples accounts.

 

'Fraud happens when somebody lies, or deceives you in order to cause harm, usually by costing you money.’

 

Surely this whole business is a deceit.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is a Government initiative to reclaim Millions of pounds of overpayments and delinquent loans irrespective of how old, and how the debts arose, fraudulently, inadvertently, oversight or simple non payment of a Social Fund loan, it matters not now how old the debt may be.

 

Where is the deceit??

 

As said FORGET any reference to consumer credit finance and legislation relating to it, these are Government debts covered by an entirely different set of procedures!!

[tokenfield]

Oh by the way I think I may have a good 'special circumstance' for not appealing the recovery letter dated 01/07/13 regarding taking deductions from my JSA . It was delivered to the wrong address. I moved in March this year! They confirmed the letter in an email to my MP.

 

Unfortunately that won't work.

 

Been there and got the teeshirt!

 

It was adjudged at the Tribunal that the DWP only have to show that they posted the letter to the last known address. If that address was an old one - it doesn't matter. The regulations are quite clear on this. The letter will be deemed to have been received whether you got it or not!

[Jamess23]

I agree with this. It's pretty shocking but I very much doubt it was done intentionally. What's the old saying - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence"?

 

If this is deliberate, an individual at the DWP has taken a huge risk with their job for no benefit to themselves.

 

Yes I would have thought that myself. Maybe they can enter details on a general 'footprint' or use an old employees 'footprint'. Could even be someone who has left, who had a grudge and this was their legacy, but hey let's not get too creative. Saying that the emplyees at the DWP can be malicious is like saying 'Oh he/she never lies! It can't be true!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Research the ACT!!

[caro]

I have an email dated 22/08/2013 that says: The abandonment rules have been considered in this case, but as six years have not elapsed (until 28/12/13) recovery can continue also the fact that no papers are held does not specifically make a difference to the recovery process.

 

So it does appear that there is still a six year abandonment deadline. This is where I feel the essence of a fraud comes from. They know that either a debt does not exist or that it is out of time and they still take money from peoples accounts.

 

'Fraud happens when somebody lies, or deceives you in order to cause harm, usually by costing you money.’

 

Surely this whole business is a deceit.

 

Fraud is also for personal gain, and that's where your suggestion falls down IMO.

 

In my friends case the first they knew was when the money was stopped from benefits and a letter arrived the same day saying why.

 

I do think the system is flawed, but then so is much of the Welfare Reform Act.

[Jamess23]

Unfortunately that won't work.

 

Been there and got the teeshirt!

 

It was adjudged at the Tribunal that the DWP only have to show that they posted the letter to the last known address. If that address was an old one - it doesn't matter. The regulations are quite clear on this. The letter will be deemed to have been received whether you got it or not!

 

Yes but the DWP know my new address as I am sadly still signing on. Blimey talk about being above the law - didn't realise the UK was so close to third world morals and standards. Seems a bit hypocritical to criticise Mugabe and others if that is the case.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It appears that some DWP staff are not aware of the extent of the Act a senior Tribunal Judge destroyed the appeal I worked on very effectively.

[Jamess23]

Fraud is also for personal gain, and that's where your suggestion falls down IMO.

 

In my friends case the first they knew was when the money was stopped from benefits and a letter arrived the same day saying why.

 

I do think the system is flawed, but then so is much of the Welfare Reform Act.

 

The rest of the quote reads (Fraud happens... 'Even if you have not lost money, you may still have experienced fraud'. If you take that to fruition - it doesn't matter if the perpetrator does not benefit financially - they have still committed fraud.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Jamess23

[antone]

Yes I would have thought that myself. Maybe they can enter details on a general 'footprint' or use an old employees 'footprint'. Could even be someone who has left, who had a grudge and this was their legacy, but hey let's not get too creative. Saying that the emplyees at the DWP can be malicious is like saying 'Oh he/she never lies! It can't be true!

 

Well, you know, I am a former employee of the DWP. It's not easily possible to log in to an old employees account, nor would anyone take the risk of creating false debts for the hell of it. I mean, if you were caught doing that (and you would be, no doubt about it) you'd lose your job and quite possibly end up in prison.

 

Look, putting it politely, the idea that this is intentional is so much less likely than the idea that it is a mistake.

[Jamess23]

It is a Government initiative to reclaim Millions of pounds of overpayments and delinquent loans irrespective of how old, and how the debts arose, fraudulently, inadvertently, oversight or simple non payment of a Social Fund loan, it matters not now how old the debt may be.

 

Where is the deceit??

 

As said FORGET any reference to consumer credit finance and legislation relating to it, these are Government debts covered by an entirely different set of procedures!!

 

 

That's fine - off to sort this out now - have fun:-)

Edited August 25, 2013 by Jamess23

[Jamess23]

Well, you know, I am a former employee of the DWP. It's not easily possible to log in to an old employees account, nor would anyone take the risk of creating false debts for the hell of it. I mean, if you were caught doing that (and you would be, no doubt about it) you'd lose your job and quite possibly end up in prison.

 

Look, putting it politely, the idea that this is intentional is so much less likely than the idea that it is a mistake.

 

Oh I agree! So what you are saying is I was signing on in Jan 2006 and that I am lying about the fact that this is a made up debt because I can assure you I am not. I have documents and papers on file to show that I was living over 50 miles away from Hull when this JSA and overpayment was supposed to have taken place. People are not perfect - who would have thought that MP's would alter their expenses - did they worry about going to prison or losing their jobs. What about these DWP employees who have been arrested and imprisoned for fraud. Criminals take chances stealing pennies. I am sure that the whole of the DWP is not made up of angels and little darlings who never lie or deceive, I thought I was naive!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

No one is 'making up debts' that is a ridiculous statement!!

 

There are records of huge amounts of money owed and it's being collected this can only benefit everyone in the long run!

 

 

 

Clearly these debts are not all the result of wrong doing but a large proportion are a result of benefit fraud where is the vulnerability there??

Edited August 25, 2013 by ims21
...

[antone]

Well, personally (I can't speak for Brig) I have no reason not to believe you. I just disagree that there is some conspiracy involved.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Oh I agree! So what you are saying is I was signing on in Jan 2006 and that I am lying about the fact that this is a made up debt because I can assure you I am not. I have documents and papers on file to show that I was living over 50 miles away from Hull when this JSA and overpayment was supposed to have taken place. People are not perfect - who would have thought that MP's would alter their expenses - did they worry about going to prison or losing their jobs. What about these DWP employees who have been arrested and imprisoned for fraud. Criminals take chances stealing pennies. I am sure that the whole of the DWP is not made up of angels and little darlings who never lie or deceive, I thought I was naive!

 

No one has accused you of telling lies, get with I, you have a case it seems on what you say here you have had good advice use it make a FORMAL COMPLAINT involve your MP, help yourself!!

[antone]

Oh I agree! So what you are saying is I was signing on in Jan 2006 and that I am lying about the fact that this is a made up debt because I can assure you I am not. I have documents and papers on file to show that I was living over 50 miles away from Hull when this JSA and overpayment was supposed to have taken place. People are not perfect - who would have thought that MP's would alter their expenses - did they worry about going to prison or losing their jobs. What about these DWP employees who have been arrested and imprisoned for fraud. Criminals take chances stealing pennies. I am sure that the whole of the DWP is not made up of angels and little darlings who never lie or deceive, I thought I was naive!

 

Mate, get a grip. I am not accusing you of lying. I am accusing the DWP of incompetence - I said so in so many words upthread.

[Jamess23]

Mate, get a grip. I am not accusing you of lying. I am accusing the DWP of incompetence - I said so in so many words upthread.

 

Apologies for being direct but 'tarring with the same brush' is catching I'm afraid. I am playing devil's advocate so please do not take it personally and thanks for clearing my misunderstanding up.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Jamess23

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The 'paper work' is not relevant as it might be in consumer credit debt, there is a record of an amount owed.

 

Yes collectable = enforceable by one means or another including waiting until a person reaches pension age any making compulsory deductions without notice.

[Jamess23]

No one is 'making up debts' that is a ridiculous statement!!

 

There are records of huge amounts of money owed and it's being collected this can only benefit everyone in the long run!

 

 

 

Clearly these debts are not all the result of wrong doing but a large proportion are a result of benefit fraud where is the vulnerability there??

 

Ok! Well that's it I think. Got it off my chest off to sort the thing out now. Have fun:-)

Edited August 25, 2013 by Jamess23

[Jamess23]

No one is 'making up debts' that is a ridiculous statement!!

 

There are records of huge amounts of money owed and it's being collected this can only benefit everyone in the long run!

 

 

 

Clearly these debts are not all the result of wrong doing but a large proportion are a result of benefit fraud where is the vulnerability there??

 

Hi Brigadier,

 

Just one more thing before I go and sort this thing out. One bit of information I forgot to share was that according to DM the payments were made by 3 giros of £52.20( less 18.64.) Now this means I cannot go to my bank statements and say - see I did not receive any JSA at that time. Now that seems fishy to me, as my preference is for BACS payments. I wonder when giro's were phased out? Mid 2006 maybe? How would you have tackled that information in a tribunal situation Brig, and how would the judge see that do you think?